Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.

The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of 3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

Disappointment
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

If what you cite is all there there, then it is hogwash.

Disappointment
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage? If that is the case, perhaps gay marriage isn't deviant, eh?

About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect
a high percentages of those divorces result in single parent families.



The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of 3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

Disappointment
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived
threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in
front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.

The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine
an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of 3%
of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

The problem is guvmint having a hand in marriage to begin with. If it had
not granted special rights (tax law, inheritence, etc) there would be no
debate about the validity of same sex marriages....it would be a non
issue.....Just another example of guvmint run amok

Disappointment
 

wrote in message

So, you're saying that you swing both ways?

Years ago I flew for a commuter line that started service from Key West to
both Miami and Tampa. For the inaugural festivities we printed up some 5000
t-shirts that said "We go either way" They were gone in just a couple of
hours. :-)

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?

Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?" The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?

Disappointment
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?

Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?" The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?



It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't
the result of homosexuality or gay marriage.

Disappointment
 

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

So their is no question about Bush's sexuality then?

bb

Disappointment
 

bb wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

So their is no question about Bush's sexuality then?

bb



I heard the twins were the result of immaculate deception...

Disappointment
 

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.

That logic is almost as flawed as "if you don't support sending our troops to
the war in Iraq, you're hoping they get killed".

Gay marriage is illegal in Florida, right?
According to your statement above, there must not be any homosexuals in the
entire state. If they can't marry, they'll simply disappear.

At least you are honest enough to say that your real agenda is to somehow
eliminate homosexuality. (You could give a rip about marriage.)

The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our health care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.

Since gays generally cannot marry at the current time, there must not be any
gay sex taking place, and therefore there must be few or no incidents of
sexually transmitted HIV. Sure.

By encouraging monogamous relationships, whether among the gay or straight
community, the amount of screwing around should decrease. The fewer partners
the average person has, the
lower the odds of contracting or spreading AIDS.

The last rib tickler is the argument that
"people will marry sheep! Grown men will marry 9-year olds! People will marry
their parents! Eleven men will move in with seventeen women and they'll call it
some kind of marriage!" Nonsense. A legal civil union should be allowed between
any *two* consenting *adults* who are *not closely related*.

Even George Bush rather recently said he was in favor of "civil unions". I
guess that was before he started nosediving in the polls and figured he could
rally some emotionally-charged homophobes to his side.

If marriage isn't a legal contract, one shouldn't have to go to the courthouse
to get divorced. If it is a legal contract, why should it be the sole legal
contract where a person's sexual orientation prohibits them from entering into
a legally binding commitment?

The solution is *not* to take marriage away from the churches. The BA
Evangelicals that are marching in the streets to declare that God hates
homosexuality (if not homosexuals themselves) should never be forced to perform
a marriage for a gay or lesbian couple, or even accept a homosexual as a member
of their church. Ever.

The solution is to take marriage out of the hands of the state. Let any two
consenting adults who are not close relatives formalize
a monogamous relationship for purposes of property ownership, inheritance,
paternity, etc as a "civil union." Gay or straight. That would be the end of
the state's involvement. Those couples who wanted the benefit of the religious
sacrament of marriage would go to the same place they would go for baptism,
communion, confession, or what not- a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.

Your synagogue, or church, would never be required to bless the union of people
your religion condemns. By the same token, an equally sincere church on the
other side of town that interprets the scriptures a bit differently should not
be prevented from marrying any couple it chooses to.

As far as the kids go: NOYB, you're a medical professional. So shame on you.
There are clinical studies that show children raised by homosexual parents are
typically as well adjusted as kids raised in
a hetero household. Why you would ignore the professional studies in your own
discipline to repeat the political sloganeering of the under-informed is
somewhat astonishing.

Those specific kids who are adopted by homosexual couples rather obviously all
started off in a hetero household, but in many cases were either abandoned by
the parents or removed by the state due to drug abuse, child abuse, or other
problems. In the case of older kids, there is often nobody willing to adopt
them. Would these kids be better off left in straight (but problem) homes where
they are beaten, whored out, and who knows what else rather than living with a
same-sex couple who would take proper care of them? I guess that consistent
with the logic that "Gay people will disappear, or at least not have sex if we
don't allow them to marry" would be a thought that "Straight people never raise
screwed up kids.".

Disappointment
 

In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.

Has less to do with gay marriage ( a lot less) than the fact that women are no
longer economically dependent on men.

Women's liberation has done far more to change the "social fabric" of the
western world than has homosexuality. I doubt that most of those unwed women in
Scandinavia have decided to remain single
in order to protest gay marriage.

One thing does not always have to impact another. In the same 2-3 decades that
gay marriage has become accepted in Scandinavia, the use of microwave ovens has
quintupled. Maybe we should look at
microwaves. (just joking)

Disappointment
 

Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?

The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality) are not diminished when those
rights are extended to the remaining 13%.
We can't recognize rights based on percentages. If only 10% of the population
is African American, why should the 15% of the remaining population that has
deep seated hatred for African Americans have to put up with them? Same sort of
argument, but nobody would ever suggest that other minority groups should have
fewer legal rights because they are outnumbered by the bigots.

Even George Bush said he was in favor of civil unions. ( he may have
flip-flopped since). That's all anybody should expect from the state. Let the
churches decide who is "married" (baptized, confessed, etc)
and leave the state out of it.

Disappointment
 

On 15 Jul 2004 16:12:53 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

In the same 2-3 decades that
gay marriage has become accepted in Scandinavia, the use of microwave ovens has
quintupled.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment banning the use of microwave
ovens cause, damnit, I'm a family values kinda guy.

bb

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a
move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.



Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than 10%.




Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.

Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.

Disappointment
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a
move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.

Sorry, fella, but I'm just playhing off your illogic.





Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than 10%.

Well, that's surely scientific...





Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.

Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.


I'm blame the decline in morality on right-wing bigortry.

Disappointment
 

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

If what you cite is all there there, then it is hogwash.


In the same vein as your accusations of Bush being a liar and a thug?

Dave

Disappointment
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.

That logic is almost as flawed as "if you don't support sending our troops
to
the war in Iraq, you're hoping they get killed".

Gay marriage is illegal in Florida, right?
According to your statement above, there must not be any homosexuals in
the
entire state. If they can't marry, they'll simply disappear.

Gay marriage won't determine whether homosexually exists or not. However,
it will only be one more thing thing that will help it to flourish. Homos
are happy accomplishing their goal in baby steps. They have already managed
to bring the issue front-and-center and get a large portion of the
population to "accept" it. They make movies, documentaries, sitcoms, etc.
that bombard us every day with the idea of "accepting" homosexuality.


At least you are honest enough to say that your real agenda is to somehow
eliminate homosexuality. (You could give a rip about marriage.)

I'd love to eliminate homosexuality. Personally, I think it's a lifestyle
*choice*, rather than something you're born with. It's a psychological
disease that should be listed among the personality disorders.


The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS
argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our health
care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.

Gays *do* spread AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases at a much
higher rate *proportionately* than heterosexuals. Letting them marry won't
raise the rate of AIDS...unless more kids grow up to be gay because their
"parents" were gay.


Since gays generally cannot marry at the current time, there must not be
any
gay sex taking place, and therefore there must be few or no incidents of
sexually transmitted HIV. Sure.

I'd be willing to bet that gay sex is more prevalent today than when the
issue of homosexuality was "in the closet".



By encouraging monogamous relationships, whether among the gay or straight
community, the amount of screwing around should decrease. The fewer
partners
the average person has, the
lower the odds of contracting or spreading AIDS.

Agreed. But, statistically, homosexuals are more likely to have multiple
partners than heterosexuals.


The last rib tickler is the argument that
"people will marry sheep! Grown men will marry 9-year olds! People will
marry
their parents! Eleven men will move in with seventeen women and they'll
call it
some kind of marriage!" Nonsense. A legal civil union should be allowed
between
any *two* consenting *adults* who are *not closely related*.


Why can't they be closely related? Does that not fit into *your* accepted
norm? A brother and sister marrying is no more and no less disgusting than
two guys marrying.

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?

Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived
general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I
suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part
of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read
and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?"
The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good
for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the
benefit of
3%?



It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't
the result of homosexuality or gay marriage.

It's the result of moral decay in our society. It's the result of Americans
changing the social "norm" to suit their desires, rather than allowing their
desires to be guided by social norms.

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a
move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in
the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country
are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag
in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment
in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed
up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.




Show me proof that same-sex marriage is a serious threat to the
well-being of children, or, better yet, *more serious* threat to the
well-being of children brought up in a traditional household where the
female is dominated by the male or abused by the male, or where one
partner drinks, takes drugs, or where the family doesn't have the
wherewithal for health care, food, shelter, whatever.

Funny that you would compare/equate a same-sex marriage household with
the
other destructive, dysfunctional types of households out there.

Sorry, fella, but I'm just playhing off your illogic.





Show me proof that our society is dominated by homosexuality.

Open a TV Guide and look at the programs that are on every night.
Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our
population.
Programs about homosexuals, or programs that make reference to
homosexuals
constitute a lot larger portion of the nightly TV program lineup than
10%.

Well, that's surely scientific...





Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby.

Yes...one of which can be the rampant spread of homosexuality. When a
civilization loses it's morals, it starts down the slippery slope to
extinction.

Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

It's one of the reasons why morality is at an all-time low.


I'm blame the decline in morality on right-wing bigortry.

Right wing "bigotry" is nothing more than conservatives trying to maintain
the moral principles that our country was built upon. Any decline in
morality is a result of liberals trying to change social customs that have
worked well for the last two centuries.

Disappointment
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why discommode 97% of the population to the benefit of
3%?

The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality)

Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.

Disappointment
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

The rights of the 87% (number closer to reality)

I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.
The 10% figure bandied about for years and touted by the "gay rights"
industry is based predominantly on Kinsey's 1948 work, which has years ago
found to be deeply flawed. Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.

Disappointment
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:YkyJc.11133

Statistics have shown that homosexuals make up about 10% of our
population.

Not so. Old figures. Debunked.

Disappointment
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage?

Not specifically. I think (no data) it results from the perceived
general
devaluation of marriage as a solid, stable societal institution.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I
suspect

The "whatever" attitude that results in a 50% divorce rate is, imo, part
of
the same cultural ambivalence. I wonder how many couples actually read
and
think about the marriage vows they speak.



I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

It's a redefinition to effect an inclusion, and the question is "Why?"
The
central nut of public policy management is to provide the greatest good
for
the greatest number. Why discommode 97% of the population to the
benefit of
3%?



It does no harm. The fact that marriage ain't what it used to be isn't
the result of homosexuality or gay marriage.

It's the result of moral decay in our society. It's the result of Americans
changing the social "norm" to suit their desires, rather than allowing their
desires to be guided by social norms.




Social norms have been evolving ever since two people discovered each
other climbing out of the primordial "zoup."

Disappointment
 

Wow! It used to be 90%. I guess the homos are winning more converts with
the agenda they've been pushing.



My number may be high. Remember, my frame of reference is Seattle. :-)

Here's a chart breaking out US Demographics:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

I'm not too sure I completely trust the methods of the compilers. (Almost half
the population claims to be "born again" Christians?).......

But, even so:
If these numbers are right-

There are more homosexuals than:

Jews
Assembly of God members
Native Americans
Episcopalians
people in prison
Mennonites
Unitarians
Seventh Day Adventists
Nazarenes
Members of the Libertarian Party

Should people who oppose the customs or beliefs of those groups even smaller
than homosexuals be able to prevent them from entering into civil contracts
simply because they're outnumbered?

Disappointment
 

I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.

It's somewhere near that in the Seattle area. We have districts where it's
probably
35-40%. Much of the rest of the country is probably not as high.

Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.

One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck of a
lot of
bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.
Are these people homo because they sneak out to get kissy with a girlfriend, or
straight because they also make babies with hubby? Tough to categorize.

The number of men who have had a homosexual experience is probably much higher
than the number of men who are
exclusively homosexual as well.

And finally, in the current climate, a lot of folks are going to be reluctant
to mark off "homosexual" on a survey form.

Disappointment
 

Gould 0738 wrote:
I've never heard an homosexual population figure as high as 13%. I presume
that includes some fringe members in order to swell the ranks, as it were.

It's somewhere near that in the Seattle area. We have districts where it's
probably
35-40%. Much of the rest of the country is probably not as high.

Current estimates range from 2% to 6%.

One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck of a
lot of
bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.
Are these people homo because they sneak out to get kissy with a girlfriend, or
straight because they also make babies with hubby? Tough to categorize.

The number of men who have had a homosexual experience is probably much higher
than the number of men who are
exclusively homosexual as well.

And finally, in the current climate, a lot of folks are going to be reluctant
to mark off "homosexual" on a survey form.



As opposed to most of the righties here, who apparently are homophobic.

Rmember when bi-racial couples were subject to derision, legal penalties
and worse? Gosharoonie, why it was just *not Christian* to date a member
of a different race and to marry one, why your life was at risk.

Well, society adjusted. Mixed couples and their multi-flavored children
are everywhere, at least everywhere I care to go, and the "difference"
barely registers among decent folk who know that skin color is not what
makes a decent person or a good relationship.

Though there are right-wingers out there who still engage in race hatred
and race crime. Didn't some rightie in this newsgroup refer to Arabs as
sand niXXers?

Disappointment
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

One of the statistical problems is defining homosexual. There are one heck
of a
lot of bi-sexuals out there, particularly females.

I suspect a lot of the people gathered in this net are not truly sexually
anomolous, but are those who will experiment in anything, with anyone or
anything, for any reason or no reason at all.

Your cited reference addresses this difficulty to some degree. Disregarding
the apparently high number of self-professed bisexuals, the total homosexual
and/or bisexual population is still only about 2.5%. The figure appears to
dip to 1% to 1.5% when adjusted to include only those who have been
exclusively homosexual since age 18.

Using your supposed Seattle figure to represent the entire country is
unusual. I don't know anyone from Seattle who will admit that Seattle is
typical of the country in any way at all. :-)

Disappointment
 

Using your supposed Seattle figure to represent the entire country is
unusual. I don't know anyone from Seattle who will admit that Seattle is
typical of the country in any way at all. :-)

A fact for which we are probably *both* grateful. :-)

Our gay and lesbian populations are higher
in the more progressive cities on the W Coast because our greater tolerance for
diversity inspires many of them to move out here. There are probably some towns
in the midwest and the south where there are no (surviving) homosexuals. (OK,
it's probably not really as bad as that sentence suggested)

Disappointment
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'

Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move
to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the
Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are
not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of
America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in
their efforts," Bush said in a statement.
------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwwwww....hopefully, Bush will have a really big disappointment in
November.

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage

It's a threat to the well-being of kids growing up in such a screwed up
environment. It's the moral decay of a society which is dominated by
homosexuality. You think it's not a problem? Look at the history of
civilizations in which homosexuality flourished.



Bull****.

Household "A": Single parent - kids go to day care after school.
Household "B": One of the two gay parents is always home after school.
Household "C" "Straight" family, kid supervision, if lucky falls into
category "B".

"B" and "C" win. "A" is a maybe.

By the way, you have no information to indicate that children from gay
couples have more problems than other kids.

Disappointment
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Using your supposed Seattle figure to represent the entire country is
unusual. I don't know anyone from Seattle who will admit that Seattle is
typical of the country in any way at all. :-)

A fact for which we are probably *both* grateful. :-)

Our gay and lesbian populations are higher
in the more progressive cities on the W Coast because our greater tolerance for
diversity inspires many of them to move out here. There are probably some towns
in the midwest and the south where there are no (surviving) homosexuals. (OK,
it's probably not really as bad as that sentence suggested)

Hey! We enjoyed some Seattle weather July 4th weekend in Virginia Beach.
Reasonably cool (well for short periods), clouded over, rainy, a little
fog. I kept look for the Gould tug...

Well...it looked like Seattle weather...but the water temp was nearly 80F.

Disappointment
 

Well...it looked like Seattle weather...but the water temp was nearly 80F.

80 degreee water?!

Good grief.

The *air* seldom gets that hot in any "proper" climate. :-)

Disappointment
 

In article . net,
says...

Gay marriage won't determine whether homosexually exists or not. However,
it will only be one more thing thing that will help it to flourish. Homos
are happy accomplishing their goal in baby steps.

My God you're dense. How the hell did you get through school? Homos
aren't interested in making the world homosexual, they simply want the
same freedoms the rest of the population is granted. Freedom from
institutionalized prejudice.

They have already managed
to bring the issue front-and-center and get a large portion of the
population to "accept" it. They make movies, documentaries, sitcoms, etc.
that bombard us every day with the idea of "accepting" homosexuality.

"They've" is another fallacy. "They're" not all organized to get us to
accept their lifestyle. "They" want acceptance for what they are, just
like Arabs, Jews, Christians, Black, Red, White, Green.


At least you are honest enough to say that your real agenda is to somehow
eliminate homosexuality. (You could give a rip about marriage.)

I'd love to eliminate homosexuality. Personally, I think it's a lifestyle
*choice*, rather than something you're born with. It's a psychological
disease that should be listed among the personality disorders.

Perhaps Hitler could give you a few good ideas about how to eliminate
homosexuality. Mother Nature probably wouldn't support your ideas.

There's a boy in our neighborhood who came out that way. I've known him
since he was born. He didn't lick anything up off the floor or get
indoctrinated by the television or radio and share his environment with
a large and extended family that has no other gay people. He's 6 and so
obviously gay it's ridiculous.

That's Mother Nature at work, not "lifestyle *choice*."

The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS
argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our health
care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.

Gays *do* spread AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases at a much
higher rate *proportionately* than heterosexuals. Letting them marry won't
raise the rate of AIDS...unless more kids grow up to be gay because their
"parents" were gay.

You silly dweeb. If you're in a legally committed relationship, you're
far less likely to stray and spread, no?

jps

Disappointment
 

I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?

Disappointment
 

Don White wrote:
I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?



Why do you think he's scared ****less of publishing any identifying
material?

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:52:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Civilizations rise and fall for many reasons, Nobby. Ours in this
country is falling, but not because of homosexuality.

So their is no question about Bush's sexuality then?

bb



I heard the twins were the result of immaculate deception...

Virgin birth...

Disappointment
 

In article ,
says...


I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?

He's a mighty scary dude. I wouldn't want to be in his care if I were
anything but white and rich.

jps

Disappointment
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

I still cannot figure out why the Fundie Repugs believe "same-sex
marriage" is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

You can figure it out, Harry -- you just claim you can't. Perceived
threat
to any individual heterosexual marriage is not the main issue. The
issue
seems to be what you might call the fabric of society. In one or two
Scandinavian countries (can't recall which, and don't have the data in
front
of me) which have legalized and accepted homosexual marriage for 2 or 3
decades, the incidence of marriage in general has dropped precipitously.
Some 60% of first births are now to single women.

So? Are you saying the drop in marriage results from allowing gay
marriage? If that is the case, perhaps gay marriage isn't deviant, eh?

Homosexual marriage is deviant and abnormal.


About 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce, and I suspect
a high percentages of those divorces result in single parent families.

The divorce rate reaching 50% is due to the preceeding idiotic idea of no
fault divorces.


The question is why a society of some 300 million people should redefine
an
entire societal structure in order to accommodate the sensibilities of
3% of
that population. It's a thorny issue, and I vacillate myself.

I don't see it as redefinition as much as inclusion.

If they want to be included they can join in with the majority of society's
norms.

Disappointment
 

"jps" wrote in message
...

There's a boy in our neighborhood who came out that way. I've known him
since he was born. He didn't lick anything up off the floor or get
indoctrinated by the television or radio and share his environment with
a large and extended family that has no other gay people. He's 6 and so
obviously gay it's ridiculous.


He's 6? How the hell do you figure he's "gay" at age 6? Do you mean to say
he's "effeminate". That's a far cry from being a homosexual. Perhaps once
he hits puberty, his hormone levels will make him more masculine and his
start liking girls. If not, his doctor can supplement with meds.


That's Mother Nature at work, not "lifestyle *choice*."

Bull****. If he's effeminate, then that's Mother Nature. If he ends up
liking other men, then that's a lifestyle *choice*.



The other good one I hear from the right on this issue is the AIDS
argument.
"Gays
spread AIDS and other diseases, and if we allow them to marry our
health
care
costs
will go through the roof." What a crock.

Gays *do* spread AIDs and other sexually transmitted diseases at a much
higher rate *proportionately* than heterosexuals. Letting them marry
won't
raise the rate of AIDS...unless more kids grow up to be gay because
their
"parents" were gay.

You silly dweeb. If you're in a legally committed relationship, you're
far less likely to stray and spread, no?

Yup. Those in the relationship are less likely to spread diseases. But if
you raise kids in a gay household, I'd venture to say that it's more likely
the kids will be gay. When those kids grow up, there's a high likelihood
that they'll have more sexual partners on average than heterosexuals...and
statistically, homosexual sex spreads more STD's (and AIDS) than
heterosexual sex.

Disappointment
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...


I wonder if the fine citizens of 'Key West' or 'South Beach' know about
Dr. No and his phobias?


I won't go to South Beach anymore. I've driven there a couple of times
during the day when I was in Miami or Key Biscayne...but mostly to drive
down the strip looking at the women in g-strings. I once had to get out to
use the public restroom by the beach. Big mistake. I walked in, and there
were 9 guys in there, two of whom were kissing. There was **** on the
floor, glory holes in the dividers, and "call 555-5555 for a BJ" on the
walls. I walked right out, and and crossed the street to use the restroom
in the Irish Pub across the street. I decided I'd never visit South Beach
again.

I've only been to Key West once...as a stopover on a cruise ship. I really
don't go to even the northern keys much because my kids are too young to
enjoy it. I'm sure I'll take my boat down to Galleon when the kids get a
little older. From there, I'll hop over to the Tortugas for some fishing.

Personally, I'm pretty darn happy in Southwest Florida. Most of the people
here are from the Midwest, and have Midwestern conservative values...rather
than the NY/NJ liberal attitude that's prevalent on the East Coast of
Florida. We do have a large number of people from Massachusetts, however.